Uni rugby contract attacked

The University of Otago has come under attack from its
own staff for its decision to sponsor the Highlanders and for
sharing a space on the team's jersey with an alcohol company.

The backlash came after the university on Monday announced a
two-year sponsorship agreement with the Highlanders, becoming
New Zealand's first university to back a Super Rugby
franchise.

Vice-chancellor Harlene Hayne yesterday defended the decision
in the wake of attacks from staff and Alcohol Action NZ,
saying the university, like all others in New Zealand, spent
money on advertising and sponsoring the Highlanders was a
good way of getting global exposure.

Tertiary Education Union organiser Shaun Scott said he had
taken calls from staff members upset about what he called a
''very contentious'' decision on how best to spend ''public
money''.

''It's something that does evoke reaction from staff at a
time when they are having to cut back on costs and in some
instances staff,'' Mr Scott said.

Staff also questioned whether the move was the best way to
attract students.

''The university attracts students due to the high-quality
teaching, research and supporting activities undertaken by
high-quality staff, and should focus on this rather than
associating itself with a sports team.''

Some union members also felt the agreement went against
assurances given by the previous vice-chancellor.

Doug Sellman.

Mr Scott said Sir David Skegg had said university
investment in the stadium - through the University Plaza
building - was related to its operations and ''not a blade of
grass nor a single seat'' would be funded by the university.

''To now directly fund the rugby team that is the prime user
of the stadium makes a mockery of these assurances in the
eyes of many.''

The union hoped to discuss the decision with Prof Hayne and
wanted it brought up at the next university council meeting.

Alcohol Action NZ medical spokesman Doug Sellman, of Otago
University's Christchurch-based National Addiction Centre,
took issue with the university backing a sports team also
sponsored by Speight's.

''Alcohol Action NZ view this co-sponsorship deal with a
booze company to fund the Highlanders rugby team as
compromising the stand the university has previously taken
about non-association with ammunitions, tobacco and alcohol
companies,'' Prof Sellman said.

The deal undermined the ''excellent work the university'' had
done to try to curb the damage alcohol was causing students
in Dunedin, which included banning all alcohol advertising on
campus, he said.

Prof Hayne said in a statement that it, like all New Zealand
universities, spent money on marketing, and sponsorship was
''recognised as a marketing tool'' for gaining brand
exposure.

''This approach, in turn, yields the income that is necessary
to fund the salaries of the staff who work at those
universities, build the buildings they work in, and fund some
of the research they conduct,'' Prof Hayne said.

She recognised some staff might be unhappy about the deal.

''The university is a very broad church. It will never be
possible to establish a sponsorship arrangement that is
supported by everyone.

''My job as the vice-chancellor is to establish effective
sponsorship arrangements [to] provide the best and broadest
exposure for the University of Otago both from within New
Zealand and from overseas.''

She said the sponsorship contract was with the Highlanders,
not Speight's.

''We will carry on with our good work to reduce the damage
caused by alcohol to students in Dunedin and the alcohol on
campus policy remains.

''We consider the stadium to be a safe and fun place for
students to go and socialise and enjoy a good night out.''

The sponsorship deal came from the existing marketing budget
and would not result in less money being spent in other
departments.

The deal split Otago Daily Times readers who commented
on the story online, with some hailing it a sound marketing
decision and others calling it a waste of taxpayer money.

A poll on the ODT website yesterday afternoon showed
53% were in favour of the deal and 47% opposed.

Otago University Students Association president Ruby
Sycamore-Smith said it did not have a problem with the deal.

''It's an innovative way of marketing for the university,
which also shows they're supportive of the greater Otago
community which students and staff are a massive part of,''
Ms Sycamore-Smith said.

2) We have had influxes of Aucklanders getting out of the rat
race immigrate to here to buy decent affordable houses with
the profit from their Auckland over-priced ones they had to
work so hard to have. We have also had loads of resettled
Cantabrians running from the refit of Christchurch where
buildings are being ripped up and shot up without regard for
the needs or feelings of the locals goaded by a centralised
govt intent on reshaping regardless.

3)We have loads of people from the U.K., Australia,
Netherlands, and even the odd Yank over here trying to get
away from the crazy over-built over-populated areas they came
from.

But all you can do is winge about the place we have and try
and turn it into a clone of the places others are trying to
escape from.

How do I know? I once was one. Lots of my friends and clients
are. Wake up and appreciate what we have before its too late
and the developers have turned us into 'just another soul
dead concrete jungle'.

The problem with waiting to see how things pan out and
waiting until they are 'proven' is that now we have the
stadium black hole that is killing our city finances, whereas
those of us that trusted the pre-build stats knew what would
happen back when, and it has.
The same could now be true for the oil. All the happy
clappies are wanting it and will very quickly change their
tune if the worse case scenario occurs as has done with the
stadium. But by that time it will be too late. The damage
will be done and the ratepayers will be up for the clean-up
costs on top of the stadium debt.
Let's be clear. The only people that benefit from these
ill-thought-out high risk endeavours are the suits that bleed
the money out of us and take it elsewhere. There will be no
sudden boom, no return to the gold rush, as a result of
Anadarko's high risk puncturing of our sea floor. If it works
that money will go the the U.S. and Auckland, and into
off-shore bank accounts as well as to foreign drilling
specialist who they will import and who will fly home every
few weeks not spending their money here.
Then you will have your proof. But once again, it will be too
late to save Dunedin ratepayers.

Body Boarder: I support oil drilling and any economic
development in Dunedin. I do not support the stadium because
it has been proved to be a financial black hole sucking the
life blood out of the city.
You are correct in that people will support hotels over
motels when tariffs are slashed as they have been. If you
know anything about the accommodation industry you would know
that even hotel occupancy of an average of 63% is low by NZ
main centre standards. The point is that Dunedin is lagging
economically and the average stay of only 1.6 nights proves
tourists are just passing through.
Both hotels and motels employ people, use services such as
laundry, cleaning products, and food products to name but a
few. Motels and hotels are making do with fewer staff and are
unable to undertake few if any capital improvements. This
again has a flow on effect on other local businesses.
The accommodation sector is one of many struggling in Dunedin
- business closures have been well documented and George and
Princes Streets have plenty of empty stores. Check NZ Stats
and the recent census if you don't believe just how bad
Dunedin is travelling. High unemployment, low wages, poor
economic growth. That is a fact and has nothing to do with
anti anything.

@Hype O. Thermia: I'm not a rugby fan(atic) but to the blame
the Highlanders players for the appalling financial
management of Otago rugby is somewhat unfair regardless of
their mediocre on-field performance. The financial failure
falls to a whole heap of others. That the players are
therefore some " ... of NZ's most expensive beneficiaries .."
is unfair. That is the consequence of who they play for. I
would posit that some of our elected and unelected
'officials' and their mates are even more expensive
'beneficiaries'.

Stevensone57 manages to do something amazing in his comments.
He takes a positive for Dunedin (increased visitor numbers)
and manages to turn that into a negative. Typical
anti-everything reasoning.

I would suggest that the reason for the drop in motel
numbers, and increase in hotel numbers would be the quality
of motels being offered. Why pay good money for an average
motel in a not so convenient location, when for the same
price or just a bit more you can stay in a 4 star hotel?

A few contributors here have spoken about the big turnaround
in Dunedin's fortunes. They say more people are visiting the
city and that the stadium is an asset. The latest figures
from NZ stats do not support that view.
Visitor numbers for 2102-2013 were up only 300 on the same
period last year (0.1%) whilst domestic visitors were up
3.8%. It is interesting to see that hotels have enjoyed an
increase of 13% in average occupancy to 63.3% whilst motels
had a modest drop of 0.1% to 59.9%. The increase in hotel
occupancy numbers is more than likely a result of the
slashing of tariiffs to remain in business. The fixed costs
of operating a hotel are very high and therefore they must
keep people coming through the doors regardless of the profit
margins.
Many of the family-operated motels simply cannot keep solvent
by reducing tariffs to gain occupancy, as evidenced by a
large North Dunedin motel going into liquidation recently. If
the motels on George Street get the initial visitor business,
which is understandable, those outside the city limits are
operating on occupancy rates far less than the 59.9% average.
Anything less than 50% occupancy rates are financially
unsustainable.
It is a myth to suggest that the stadium is a windfall for
accommodation providers as the NZ statistics numbers prove
that theory to be false month after month. Most motels in
Dunedin operate on a leasehold basis, which is a fixed cost
regardless of occupancy Many of these leases were written
when times were good. When occupancy drops to the current
levels operators cannot afford to pay their leases or must
borrow money to stay afloat. Many are waiting for better
times ahead, but as yet they are not seeing much light at the
end of the tunnel.

Sparrowhawk: I think the idea is (as expressed elsewhere)
that some parts of the university are using this as a way to
attract more brain damaged rugby players for research
purposes - I think the beer swilling rugger bugger crowd will
eventually diminish as the research pays off and the brain
damage decreases.

As a business person I am not opposed to a new Hotel nor am I
opposed to oil exploration. I am utterly appalled at the
waste of $20 million per annum on the stadium. As a business
model it is about as bad as it gets. Those who believe just
because you don't agree with one thing you are opposed to
everything are barking up the wrong tree.

Digger hits the nail on the head, raising the branding issue
of "whether that is the image you want to project for
the university". While there have been some highly
intelligent professional rugby players who have made their
mark in positive ways after their playing careers were over,
there are also too many who hit the headlines for drunkenness
and violence and get jobs exploiting their fame because
that's the best they can offer an employer. Rugby
players - and this is not just rugby, other sports are the
same - have to have highly developed skills and fitness, no
doubt about that. But academic excellence?
Analytical skills? Original research
capabilities?

Otago University has high achievers in exciting fields -
exciting to young people who aim for excellence, who are
ambitious to go on to careers where they may be high earners,
may make a difference through advances in medicine,
computing, green technology, a just society. Why are
the University's own star performers, its own (research)
teams' achievements, not being used for marketing?
Wouldn't this funnel the money into more useful areas ?

As for "raising the profile" there is no need to raise the
profile of the University to the masses, it's not a burger
franchise. The people who need to be aware of it are
those who want to attend a University with high academic
standards, so when they graduate their degree really means
something, and those people make the effort to thoroughly
examine the reputations of the universities, and the quality
of the courses they intend to take, before making their
decision. We don't need any more students whose reason
for coming here is the "party" life, couch-burning, drunken
antics publicised on youtube and facebook, or a crummy rugby
team that has spent years unable to organise themselves to
manage their own finances and has turned into one of NZ's
most expensive beneficiaries.

lily: I think more importantly the university using the
Highlanders for advertising is wrongheaded, most if not
all high school students in Otago and Southland will have
been exposed to university outreach through their school,
many will have already had one or more trips to the
university before choosing a campus to go to. Sponsoring the
highlanders is likely to be wasted money, those who see the
uni's crest on the field will only recognise it because they
already know about the university, those who don't recognise
it wont benefit from the advertising.

If their real intention was outreach, and I'm sure when they
talked to the uni's own department of marketing they would
have been told, they should be sponsoring a team in a
market where they would have some actual impact -
Christchurch and/or Auckland are obviously better candidates
than Otago.

As John points out the Highlanders are a commercial for
profit team, they don't need sponsoring, if they want to make
their image better, better than the self entitled, money
grasping, image they have now in Dunedin, they'd be better
off sponsoring the University, perhaps those Dept of PE
courses that the uni used to justify its support for the
rugby stadium but then subsequently cancelled.

nighttimejohn (and others) you don't seem to understand even
though it's stated time and time again - the University IS a
commercial enterprise! And a very successful one at
that! It just a shame they don't pay full land use
rates to the council........

And I digress now, but where have all the wowsers been while
the University's very own rugby club has been sponsored by -
wait for it - beer brands - Check out their website.
The club has been sponsored by one or the other for over 20
years now and that's as far back as I can remember due to my
tender age. How many other university clubs or organisations
are sponsored by alcohol brands and/or drinking
establishments?

I see a direct comment has been made which I think underpins
a lot of the objection to the deal. Basically the impression
that people who like rugby are beer-swilling, pig-headed,
obnoxious louts. As a female "girly" Masters student with a
full scholarship, and also season tickets to the Highlanders,
I find that stereotype highly offensive. I enjoy the game and
the atmosphere, and frankly, find me a student who can afford
the $7 beers at the stadium anyway. Go to a rugby game, go to
the local pub - the majority of people in New Zealand with an
alcohol problem are older people.

I don't agree with that, Sparrowhawk. More "rugger buggers"
means more bums on seats at the stadium which will mean less
financial support will be rquired from the ratepayers. You
can't have it both ways.

This has nothing to do with the Highlanders and all to do
with the stadium. Why? Because when the Otago Polytechnic
sponsored the Otago Volts no one blinked a eye, however when
the Uni wants to sponsor the Highlanders all hell breaks
lose. What's different apart from the game they are playing
that could cause such controversy? The stadium.

Having a tight relationship helps ensure the long term
future of the Highlanders franchise and keep the turnstiles
at the stadium moving which reduces the financial burden on
the ratepayers.

Get over it, instead of wasting your breath bagging
the stadium embrace local enterprises trying to improve it.
These bashers are the same people against gas exploration,
hotels and anything that would make Dunedin prosper; I bet
Union Organiser Shaun Scott is part of this crowd. Maybe
we should listen to him and in his union mates, I mean it
worked out for the Australian Automotive Industry right???

Isn't sponsoring a continually losing team a bad look for the
uni? Does it not show that the the uni backs losers and under
proformers? And why sponsor a local team when they're wanting
to attract out of town students who have their own
affiliation with their local team? It would drive me away
rather than attract me to the institution. This is a very bad
decision from the Vice-chancellor.

'The university attracts students due to the high-quality
teaching, research and supporting activities undertaken by
high-quality staff, and should focus on this rather than
associating itself with a sports team.'

Don't disagree with the above statement but what percentage
of Otago's annual student intake make their decision to enrol
based on the quality of 'teaching, research and supporting
activities' provided by staff?

From my experience the vast majority of ex Otago students
that you meet later in life don't recount stories of the
quality of their degrees, but more stories about student life
in Dunedin.

Sorry to say it but I suspect the majority of Otago Uni's
growth over recent years has been fuelled not by the quality
of its teaching and research but more the overall experience
(mostly extra curricular) provided to the young
impressionable students straight out of high school, a fair
chunk of whom would fit straight into the Super 15
demographic. After all how much value has the University
gained over the years from the single phrase "Scarfies on the
terrace"

Not to say we didn't get a quality education but don't take
your eye off what Otago's real point of difference is when it
comes to attracting students to this town, and don't forgot
what role these young impressionable masses play in allowing
the university to undertake its research and post grad work.

The last thing we need is to attract more beer swilling
Rugger Buggers to this town. Please consider the existing and
past student problems that have been caused in this town due
to Uni culture. Changing the culture is not going to be
assisted by the sector of the potential students that will be
attracted here from rugby advertising.

This marketing move is two-faced and naive. After all the
good work the University and its staff have achieved over
alcohol consumption on campus during the past few years, this
move is like a slap in the face and frankly embarrassing.
This country and its young people have a major alcohol
problem and lack of maturity around its consumption. For
Prof. Hayne to think there is no link to rugby and the booze
culture is pathetic. Just look at how many so-called
'professional' players that have to be disciplined for
drinking in excess. Bad move!